when good and evil compromise, evil ALWAYS WINS!!!No quarter. Not slippery slope, no compromises
“....shall not be infringed “ means just that.
Let the incrementalism happen to the left now.
Liberal definition of compromise———”You do what we say and STFU.”
If they get 50% of what they want with every "compromise," they get 99% of what they want after eight or nine "compromises."
And, the left compromises......when? Certainly not after a high profile shooting.
No surrender, no retreat! Never give up your guns!!
When was the last time anyone on the Left offered to compromise on abortion?
In the real world, thieves don't steal your rights and expect you to be content with half of them back.
..” The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” (However, I’m willing to compromise on what kind of pizza to order...)
I dunno. I’m not a Dudley fan. In this case the compromise was to get most of what we wanted, not lose less than they wanted to take.
Compromise is how Harry Reid gets an A+ rating with the NRA
Now the other side has something banned and now has a chip to bargain with. You can bet they will want more than you will want to give up to gain what you have lost back.
NEVER BARGAIN IF YOU HAVE ALL THE CHIPS, or guns!
when good and evil compromise, evil ALWAYS WINS!!!“replacing them with ineffective activists who reject incremental victories and the art of compromise.”
Here is the deep systemic problem with compromise. We have what we want. They want to reduce what we can have. Every single compromise with the anti-gun crowd is a small step towards their goal, and away from ours.
Every single compromise is a net loss for us, and a new gain for them.
It sounds like this writer has a political benefactor who is being primaried.
In a compromise,, each party gives up some of what they want. It isn’t a compromise if I ask you for a dollar but offer you nothing, but eventually I settle for 50 cents.
They never give us anything new. In return for their gun show “loophole”, are they willing to end the machine gun ban, or end permits in favor of constitutional carry?
Making a demand, then settling for half, is not a compromise.
Increase limit to 30 rounds? Why stop there?
They’re just trying to save face at that point, having a limit for the sake of having a limit because their imperative is “reasonable restrictions”, whereby they do mean to restrict. It’s akin to Xerxes demand of “just a little dirt and water”, whereby he is offered tribute - establishing that he does warrant tribute, and will rain destruction on any who refuse to comply.
Maybe I’m missing something in reading these Posts.
The “other side” has already attained their Victory.
The Republicans are tying to get the needle swinging the other way and are being blocked by an “all or nothing” push.
The result of All or Nothing in this case will end up being “Nothing”. The damage was done years ago.
All or nothing only works in Politics when you are holding all the Marbles. In this case, we aren’t. You have to walk before you can run.
Just my $.02, your Mileage may vary.